Post Primer: Obama on the Israel-Palestine conflict

During U.S. President Barack Obama’s speech on the Middle East and North Africa on Thursday, he made a reference to a future Palestinian state using the borders of 1967. Here is a look at the implications of his statement.
What did Mr. Obama say, exactly?During Thursday’s speech about America’s role in the Middle East and North Africa. Mr. Obama touched on the Israel-Palestine conflict. But there was one statement that overshadowed much of his speech:

“A lasting peace will involve two states for two peoples.. The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed [land] swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states.”

What are the implications of his statement?
For Mr. Obama to support Palestine’s call for any future state to revert back to the borders of 1967 during a tumultuous time for Israel-Palestine peace was seen as surprising. Mr. Obama’s relationship with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has never been strong.

The Bush government endorsed a two-state solution, and Mr. Obama reiterated the government’s desire to see it happen on Thursday. But many analysts and critics alike did not expect Mr. Obama to declare a private view long-held by Washington about the Israel-Palestine conflict. Israel is a long-time ally of the United States, and Mr. Obama’s Republican critics were quick to slam his remarks.

As expected, Mr. Netanyahu was also disappointed by Mr. Obama’s statement — saying his endorsement of Palestine demands could leave Israel “indefensible.” Mr. Obama’s speech has set the stage for an extremely tense talk between the two world leaders, scheduled for Friday at the White House.

“There is a feeling that Washington does not understand the reality, doesn’t understand what we face,” an official on board the plane taking Mr. Netanyahu to Washington told reporters.

What are the 1967 borders?
The 1967 borders are a reference to the division of territory before Israel captured the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, East Jerusalem, and the Golan Heights during the Six-Day-War in June of that year. The initial borders, known as “The Green Line,” were set up as part of a 1949 armistice with Israel’s neighbours.

Palestine wants the land Israel captured during the Six-Day-War returned, but Israel says reverting back to the 1967 borders are a threat to their security — and sees this as paving the way for the country to make more concessions if a future Palestinian state is created. Along with many other concerns, Israel also sees Mr. Obama’s statement as bypassing border negotiations.
Why is this timely?
President Mahmoud Abbas, writing in an op-ed for the New York Times on May 17, plans to ask the United Nations General Assembly to recognize the Palestinian Territories using the 1967 borders — and grant their request of becoming a UN member. Right now, they are just considered observers.

“Palestine would be negotiating from the position of one United Nations member whose territory is militarily occupied by another, he writes, “however, and not as a vanquished people ready to accept whatever terms are put in front of us.”

Membership to the UN would not officially make Palestine a country, but usually it paves the way for the state to become internationally recognized. Currently, 112 countries recognize Palestine as a sovereign state but that number is expected to rise leading up to the UN meeting in September.

And while Mr. Obama’s speech was disappointing to Netanyahu — his speech did not seem to support Palestine’s bid to be recognized as a state.

“Symbolic actions to isolate Israel at the United Nations in September won’t create an independent state,” he said on Thursday. “Palestinian leaders will not achieve peace or prosperity if Hamas insists on a path of terror and rejection. And Palestinians will never realize their independence by denying the right of Israel to exist.”

The United States plays a major role in the UN vote because even if two-thirds of the vote was in favour of Palestine — the Security Council has the ultimate say, and Washington can veto the result.